|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 22, 2007 13:32:08 GMT -6
Libslayer, I have to commend you on your research. However, I couldn't agree with you any less on your conclusions. (Also, I now have a separate heading for Iraq. It would be better if this discussion was continued in that section.) Here's the bulk (though not the entirety) of the you cited with Tom Brokaw from MSNBC:&; None of which changes the fact that the threat for which Bush invaded, the threat of terrorists getting WMD, was fully vindicated. David Kay: Kay also told Lauer that he believes the tendency to say inaccurate intelligence must have resulted from White House pressure is "absolutely wrong," and that the decision to go to war was "absolutely prudent." www.dod.gov/news/Jan2004/n01292004_200401295.html"absolutely prudent." David Kay: Iraq May Have Been 'Far More Dangerous' Than Believed, Kay Tells Senators Jan. 29, 2004 www.dod.gov/news/Jan2004/n01292004_200401295.htmlDavid Kay "Iraq was in "clear material violation" of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Kay said." www.dod.gov/news/Jan2004/n01292004_200401295.htmlKay's testimony to Congress (with pictures) A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research. A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN. Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons. New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN. Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS). www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.htmlDeulfer Report Saddam, angered by sanctions, inspections, and the Desert Fox attacks, unilaterally abrogated Iraq’s compliance with all UN resolutions—including the 1991 Gulf war ceasefire. www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.htmlDeulfer Report: As of March 2003, ricin was being developed into stable liquid to deliver as an aerosol in small rockets, cluster bombs, and smoke generators, according to Dr. Al Azmirli. www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap6.htmlDeulfer Report: SG judges that the longstanding intent of the Regime was to restart WMD production once UN sanctions were lifted. Based on an investigation of facilities, materials, and production outputs, ISG also judges that Iraq had a break-out capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard CW agent, but not nerve agents www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.htmlDeulfer Report: ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The network of laboratories could have provided an ideal, compartmented platform from which to continue CW agent R&D or small-scale production efforts, but we have no indications this was planned The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories were never declared to the UN www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.htmlDeulfer Report To try to garner diplomatic support in the UN, the former Regime ensured that Chinese, French and Russian energy firms, as well as others representing states sympathetic to Iraq, were prominent recipients of oil contracts www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html Deulfer Report Saddam had said that after sanctions Iraq would resume production of WMD www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html Deulfer Report The Regime made a token effort to comply with the disarmament process, but the Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UNSC’s resolutions www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html Deulfer Report According to ‘Abd Hamid Mahmud, Saddam privately told him that Iraq would reacquire WMD post-sanctions www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html Deulfer Report By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999. www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 23, 2007 0:25:50 GMT -6
Real hourly wages have increased only 27 cents/hour during Bush's entire 6 years. During Clinton's last 6 years real wages increased 52 cents/hour, almost twice as much. Real wages declined 1 cent/hour in December, and are only 2 cents/hour higher than in October. They are not "steadily increasing." Below is copy of the table from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing real wages from 1966 through December 2006. BLS: Real WagesThe slow wage growth is completely consistent with the Bush economy's slow job creation and low employment-population growth compared to the last 6 years under Clinton. Bush's reverse Robin Hood tax cuts, cheap labor advocacy, and "deficits-don't matter" policies are destroying our economy. Bush's greed-based economic policies have been a failure for most Americans. In the long-run, they will be a failure for all Americans.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 23, 2007 0:49:23 GMT -6
None of which changes the fact that the threat for which Bush invaded, the threat of terrorists getting WMD, was fully vindicated. Libslayer, Don't you ever get tired of being wrong. The 9/11 report has already analyzed this. And the report concluded that there were no WMDs--not nuclear, biological or chemical, and that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. ln fact, it's very clear that Saddam never harbored terrorists, and never would have harbored them as they were a threat to his own regime. It's amazing how many Right-Wingers want to re-write history and, despite the 9/11 report and Bush's own admission, deny that there were no WMDs and Saddam had absolutely no connection with the terrorists, nor was he even sympathetic with them. Again, terrorists were a threat to Saddam's own regime. There were no terrorists in Iraq, or supported by Iraq when Saddam was in power. Again, the 9/11 report is in, and those were the conclusions reached.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 23, 2007 5:20:48 GMT -6
Wrong - and there were at least twelve ever changing reasons given after it was clear no WMDs existed - talk about flip flopping.
The real threat was in Afghanistan - remember them? and a fellow named Osama Bin Laden?
Also what about the real threats posed by Iran and N Korea? who also happen to get their weapons and technology from our "friends" in China?
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 23, 2007 7:23:40 GMT -6
Exactly - Clinton's economy produced twice as much average wage gains. And what is misleading about the Bush numbers is that they are skewed by the significant gains made by those earning six figures and up. The reality and documented by numerous credible sources that wages for those under six figures which accounts for the middle and working classes have stagnated at best, and declined by as much as 3%
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 23, 2007 15:02:03 GMT -6
"Don't you ever get tired of being wrong. " How can I get tired of something I am not doing. "The 9/11 report has already analyzed this." The 9/11 report? What the heck does that have to do with anything? I am talking about the Kay and Deulfer reports, both of which vindicate Bush. " And the report concluded that there were no WMDs-"
WMD's WERE found.
" and that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11"
Liberal redherring argument.
"ln fact, it's very clear that Saddam never harbored terrorists, "
Let me set you straight, AGAIN:
David Kay - testimony to Congress Jan 28, 2004
"It was a country that had the capability in weapons of mass destruction areas and in which terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it. "
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r108:S28JA4-0018:
David Kay:
Kay also told Lauer that he believes the tendency to say inaccurate intelligence must have resulted from White House pressure is "absolutely wrong," and that the decision to go to war was "absolutely prudent."
www.dod.gov/news/Jan2004/n01292004_200401295.html
************************************************************ and that the decision to go to war was "absolutely prudent." *************************************************************
"It's amazing how many Right-Wingers want to re-write history "
I keep having to correct your revisionist accounts.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 23, 2007 15:06:05 GMT -6
Exactly - Clinton's economy produced twice as much average wage gains. And what is misleading about the Bush numbers is that they are skewed by the significant gains made by those earning six figures and up. The reality and documented by numerous credible sources that wages for those under six figures which accounts for the middle and working classes have stagnated at best, and declined by as much as 3% From the beginning to end of clinton's tenure real wages increased 51 cents, under Bush it is currently at 30 cents and accelerating with 2 more years to go. "And what is misleading about the Bush numbers is that they are skewed by the significant gains made by those earning six figures and up." Those gains were higher under clinton than under Bush so they would have skewed clinton's more.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 26, 2007 17:21:09 GMT -6
No they wouldn't, because under clinton, nearly everyone had wage growth, not just the upper brackets.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 26, 2007 17:40:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 26, 2007 20:16:26 GMT -6
CEO's now make on average 400 times that of the average worker
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 27, 2007 9:38:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 2, 2007 2:05:06 GMT -6
Due to the recession. But they're rising rapidly again. " In 2005, the average CEO of a Standard & Poor's 500 company received $13.51 million in total compensation, according to an analysis by The Corporate Library. This represents a 16.14 percent increase in CEO pay over 2004...." Let's see. If they rose another 16.14 % in 2006 that would put them at about 478 times the average worker's pay. But since profits are at all-time record levels, and Corporate greed and accounting fraud are also at record levels, CEO salaries have probably risen much higher. And CEO salaries will be higher still when Bush finally leaves office. The current trend on executive salaries is upward, and sharply upward at that.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 2, 2007 8:09:36 GMT -6
"Due to the recession. But they're rising rapidly again."
You are welcome to show how a recession would affect a CEO's pre-negotiated pay locked into the contract.
|
|